So your position is that a whole male and female dog, who are brother and sister and raised from puppy hood in a family, will not mate when female comes into heat. And this is a credible position on a biology forum?

KevinBehan wrote:So your position is that a whole male and female dog, who are brother and sister and raised from puppy hood in a family, will not mate when female comes into heat. And this is a credible position on a biology forum?

More importantly is that you've failed to explain how a moose getting eaten is experience a genetically advantageous situation, as you claim. And, unlike you and your idiotic 'energy' rants, I don't make absolutists declaration when behavior is involved, but the statement holds. Since this is an evolution section, go back to explaining how this mystical energy that only you can see is involved in evolution and why you are the only one who has figured out how evolution really works.

Prom asks: "why you are the only one who has figured out how evolution really works."I’m not saying I know how evolution "really" works. I’m saying that I know that you don’t know because you don’t know why animals do what they do, the dog in particular. (For example: you should have researched incest avoidance in domestic dogs before posting.) I believe nature evolves as a whole, not as separate and distinct components relative to each other and not by way of random mutations because genes are not the most basic kind of information. I believe it will prove more logical that genes mutate according to an underlying process. When Darwin postulated evolution by way of natural selection, he did not know how it worked. Genes had not yet been discovered and he didn’t even have access to Mendel’s research. He compared fossils and found universal principles that made common descent the most logical interpretation of the evidence. Likewise, once one knows why dogs do what they do, one can compare animal behavior and find a universal principle in any given interaction between any two individuals. So I don’t have to know the actual mechanism, just that there must be one because this is the most logical interpretation of the evidence.Saying that life doesn't evolve by way of random mutations isn't arguing for intelligent design or creationism. It's not even taking a position on the question as that is irrelevant in any examination of why animals do what they do.

LIAR. You've written that evolutionary theory is wrong. And that the 'network"drives evolutionary change. Though I realize you may not know what you think, since reading your articles one sees that your views are schizophrenic and often self-contradictory.

I’m saying that I know that you don’t know because you don’t know why animals do what they do, the dog in particular.

And that is another stupid argument by exclusion.

I believe nature evolves as a whole, not as separate and distinct components relative to each other and not by way of random mutations because genes are not the most basic kind of information. I believe it will prove more logical that genes mutate according to an underlying process.

You can believe whatever you want, however the evidence prompts us to come to a vastly different conclusion.

Maybe you can expand on "genes are not the most basic kind of information"

Likewise, once one knows why dogs do what they do, one can compare animal behavior and find a universal principle in any given interaction between any two individuals.

Buddy you don't know anything, you pretend you know. Maybe you've even convinced yourself about it. Jean Donaldson once said that the higher up in skill you go up the behavioral sciences, the less you will hear people claiming they 'know', that kind of certainty is a trait found among the incompetent. Puts you right up there with Millan, Pattison, and Martin.

So far you've been the one guilty of idiotic statements, and if we pursue the logical implications of your various statements we will end up at the same place. Whereas each of my statements rests on logical bedrock: for example, the laws of nature are the most basic form of information, they are far more fundamental than genes and emotion is their physical embodiment. Shouldn't be a big surprise since all life evolved in response to those laws.

KevinBehan wrote:So far you've been the one guilty of idiotic statements, and if we pursue the logical implications of your various statements we will end up at the same place. Whereas each of my statements rests on logical bedrock: for example, the laws of nature are the most basic form of information, they are far more fundamental than genes and emotion is their physical embodiment. Shouldn't be a big surprise since all life evolved in response to those laws.

I think an honest review of this will clearly put idiocy in your side of the argument. I haven't introduced magical elements and unnecessary complexity to a relatively well characterized theory. Your statements are stupid and tautologous. Saying nature is natural is a waste of time, you are pretending to say something profound, when in fact you are simply trying to hide your ignorance.

So once again, explain how evolutionary theory is wrong, without making proclamation and using real objective evidence, not just 'energy' that only you can see or can only be 'seen' if you already believe in the quackery of NDT.

Also how is it that you guys always start insulting people who disagree with you, I am not saying that I agree with what he is saying, but why don't you try disproving his idea with evidence, instead of insulting him?

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition"-D. Gould